Who can clearly state the current Democrat position on Iraq?
- Thread starter Cap’n AMatrixca
- Start date
dg
Heroic Yogurt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Posts
- 15,320
Ishmael said:
I don't know what's ignorant about that. The fight begins and Bill Clinton has a heart attack. Bush and Cheney look at each other and share a little republigiggle and Gore uses the opportunity to sneak behind them and eat them. Game over!
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Interesting how PINKY was SCREAMING the surge is a FAILURE before it started
and now he plays
Where is Waldo?
and now he plays
Where is Waldo?
The democratic position on Iraq is as follows:
1. A Republican Administration and Congress got us into this quagmire.
2. The Public is discontented and angry with the state of affairs.
3. We already used this discontent to take the congress.
4. We can continue to ride this discontent to the White House.
5. The Republican sponsored "surge" cannot be permitted to be seen as a success until Democrats hold the executive.
6. Once in power - we will attempt to end the war by withdrawing and having talks with Iran and Syria.
7. No matter what - if the war ends while a Democrat is in power - we win.
Other than that - the democrats have no position on Iraq. Neither do the Republicans, but the thread isn't about the republican wishy-washiness over the issue or the many Pub flip-floppers over the war.
1. A Republican Administration and Congress got us into this quagmire.
2. The Public is discontented and angry with the state of affairs.
3. We already used this discontent to take the congress.
4. We can continue to ride this discontent to the White House.
5. The Republican sponsored "surge" cannot be permitted to be seen as a success until Democrats hold the executive.
6. Once in power - we will attempt to end the war by withdrawing and having talks with Iran and Syria.
7. No matter what - if the war ends while a Democrat is in power - we win.
Other than that - the democrats have no position on Iraq. Neither do the Republicans, but the thread isn't about the republican wishy-washiness over the issue or the many Pub flip-floppers over the war.
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
Keep the war out of it-
You know, it's scary that the war on terrorism has anything to do with elections as the price of failure in the global theater of operations is genocide and urban war here in the USA.
Nothing to gloat about, fuckers....
You know, it's scary that the war on terrorism has anything to do with elections as the price of failure in the global theater of operations is genocide and urban war here in the USA.
Nothing to gloat about, fuckers....
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
Until the next election, there can be few firm decisions about the Iraq war. Demanding one is a waste of time as the republicans are still in the executive branch, and, we can tell by Bush's speech yesterday, exactly where they stand.
Yes, the democrats can vote to defund the war. Is it a safe move while Bush is still president? I don't think so. Everything will be done to undermine the democratic vote -- again, listen to Bush's speech yesterday.
The people will decide on how they want the war handled by their vote. A republican will be chosen if the people want the war to continue as it is, and, if a democrat is elected, it will be based on that elected official. How Hilary Clinton would handle it is totally different than how Dennis Kucinich would handle it.
The bottom line is that the democrats want to end the war. Many of us thought it was a foolish move right from the beginning.
Yes, the democrats can vote to defund the war. Is it a safe move while Bush is still president? I don't think so. Everything will be done to undermine the democratic vote -- again, listen to Bush's speech yesterday.
The people will decide on how they want the war handled by their vote. A republican will be chosen if the people want the war to continue as it is, and, if a democrat is elected, it will be based on that elected official. How Hilary Clinton would handle it is totally different than how Dennis Kucinich would handle it.
The bottom line is that the democrats want to end the war. Many of us thought it was a foolish move right from the beginning.
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
So the death of a few thousand American civilians here and a million civilians overseas is worth a partisan election win?
So be it.
I guess it will take a nuke in DC or NY after all.......
So be it.
I guess it will take a nuke in DC or NY after all.......
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
Lost Cause said:
You've bought it hook, line and sinker, haven't you? 9/11 had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. And where are the million civilians?
It's too bad it has to be partisan. That, however is the reality. The war has always been partisan.
President Bush said he was going to spend his political capital and he did.
PannieMonster
Infidel
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Posts
- 14,630
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
eh? The democrats have a position? That's news to me.
MechaBlade
irrumatio king
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 43,346
I see now that any conservative thread on Iraq devolves into a series of (poorly conceived) Clinton jokes and until all the board conservatives are servicing one another in a Republican daisy chain. All because plasma called Matrixy on his shit.
Thank god I'm a liberal.
Thank god I'm a liberal.
MechaBlade
irrumatio king
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 43,346
Shh, you'll confuse them. In Republica, one speaks for all.The Mutt said:
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
That sums up the position and issue I guess..
1. You've bought the argument for the enemy "hook line and sinker".
2. How many people will die when we leave and the region collapses?
3. History has shown that terrorists keep trying for their targets until they get them..so see the White House and Capitol Building while you can...
Think in the long term and stop looking back to get even with the administration.
I'm for the plan to phase out by an American soldier with an Iraqi soldier and increase special ops hunt and kill tactics with support for the fledgling Iraqi democracy.
I eventually want all American troops back here and save billion$ rather than keeping them in Europe/Korea/Japan............after we've neutralized the enemy.
1. You've bought the argument for the enemy "hook line and sinker".
2. How many people will die when we leave and the region collapses?
3. History has shown that terrorists keep trying for their targets until they get them..so see the White House and Capitol Building while you can...
Think in the long term and stop looking back to get even with the administration.
I'm for the plan to phase out by an American soldier with an Iraqi soldier and increase special ops hunt and kill tactics with support for the fledgling Iraqi democracy.
I eventually want all American troops back here and save billion$ rather than keeping them in Europe/Korea/Japan............after we've neutralized the enemy.
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
Lost Cause said:
2. How many people will die when we leave and the region collapses?
How many people are dying now? How is their infrastructure? Who's going to get the money from the oil? How safe do the Iraqis feel with the US troops occupying their home?
3. History has shown that terrorists keep trying for their targets until they get them..so see the White House and Capitol Building while you can...
Okay. Then why do you think that the war on Iraq has made the US safer? By your statement above, the war that we have created, that has kept our troops busy elsewhere, isn't going to stop the small groups from trying to get us on our home soil.
Think in the long term and stop looking back to get even with the administration.
You are attributing something to me that I did not say. I'm not trying to "get even" with an administration. I have believed from the onset that the administration was misguided. This war should have never happened. It has. Now, there will be no "win - win." Do we continue to have loses -- especially to our economy, or do we cut our loses and do the best we can with the fall out. No matter what, we have lost. Bad decision to go in and getting out will not be without trauma to the US.
I'm for the plan to phase out by an American soldier with an Iraqi soldier and increase special ops hunt and kill tactics with support for the fledgling Iraqi democracy.
I eventually want all American troops back here and save billion$ rather than keeping them in Europe/Korea/Japan............after we've neutralized the enemy.
There will never be replacement of the American soldier with an Iraqi. Why? Because the Iraqis are not united. They never have been and they won't be. They are tribal and their loyalty is to their tribe, not to any government. Look at the history of the area. Their are about 150 tribes in Iraq and they are generally theocratic.
Until the Iraqis want something different, which won't happen in my life time, until they want a different type of government, it won't happen no matter what you want or the Bush administration wants.
Who are we supporting? Who is a winner in the war on Iraq? I'd say look to the money -- don't try to kid yourself that it has anything to do with the people of Iraq.
It's a mess, it's going to be a mess.
Short sighted was going in to begin with. Now we have to pay the price. I think wasting our money, our economic future as a country and our military resources is thoughtless. Getting out now is the only way it's going to change. There will be repercussions. There are anyway.
garbage can
North by Northeast
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Posts
- 57,302
The press has let up a little in accusing our Marines of atrocities.Cap’n AMatrixca said:
But if there's any sign of winning the war, you'll see more Marines in jail.
U
unregistered
Guest
B_Gus_Richards
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Posts
- 848
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
Who can clearly state the current Republican position on Iraq?
What's the actual plan on how to fix this quagmire?
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Just curious
Does ANYONE have an answer to this
Two days ago, Leading Pussy, DemomDUM, Hideous Rotten ClitBITCH said the SURGE is working BUT we must get out
AND
TO BE READY TO FIGHT THE NEW WAR?
OK
What new war?
Does ANYONE have an answer to this
Two days ago, Leading Pussy, DemomDUM, Hideous Rotten ClitBITCH said the SURGE is working BUT we must get out
AND
TO BE READY TO FIGHT THE NEW WAR?
OK
What new war?
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
You mean the way FDR took us into WWII?vetteman said:
Or the way Truman won it?
Maybe you mean the way Carter launched a mission to rescue the hostages in Iran.
Or do you mean the way Nixon pulled us out of Viet Nam "before the job was done" to quote our current president?
Or the way Reagan tucked tail and ran from Lebanon?
Or maybe you mean the way Clinton handled the situation in the Balkans without losing a single American soldier to combat?
Where did you study history? The Institute of Vending Machine Repair?
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
How many people are dying now?
That's a revealing statement......are you that callous in real life?
US troops occupying their home?
Where did you get that info, assumption?
the war on Iraq has made the US safer?
Yes. they are in an area we can engage with and kill them in large numbers.
I'm not trying to "get even" with an administration. I have believed from the onset that the administration was misguided.
"Everything will be done to undermine the democratic vote -- again, listen to Bush's speech yesterday."
Kool aid assumption that Bush is at the head of everything pulling the strings..in reality he is not.
And the Congress, Senate, DOD, UN, the prior administration, and most of the area intell agencies said it was imperative to get control of Iraq and get Sodamn Insane out.
Do we cut our loses and do the best we can with the fall out. No matter what, we have lost. Bad decision to go in and getting out will not be without trauma to the US.
Again, are you that callous in real life? Condemning people to a sure death including the redeployment of the grandchildren of those now serving because of irresponsible politics making the area dangerous for a long time down the road?
Are you prepared to accept responsibility for the carnage?
There will never be replacement of the American soldier with an Iraqi. Why? Because the Iraqis are not united. They never have been and they won't be. They are tribal and their loyalty is to their tribe, not to any government. Look at the history of the area. Their are about 150 tribes in Iraq and they are generally theocratic.
So write them off and let them die, and not bring them into the 21st century? The only reason the Iraqis have been that way because Sodamn keep them divided with his loaded government and sheer terror tactics. They need time to learn new ways-our republic took 13 years...
I guess we should have let Germany keep all those conquered countries and stayed out of WW2...the Jews were expendable.
Until the Iraqis want something different, which won't happen in my life time, until they want a different type of government, it won't happen no matter what you want or the Bush administration wants.
How are they going to be able to without a strong policing presence that will convince them that the enemy won't kick in their doors and kill them for siding with the new government?
Of course for self preservation they won't cooperate until they SEE that we are there until order is restored. It's already happening in outlying districts under US/Iraqi control-but you can't acknowledge that because that would show hope in the process.
Who are we supporting? Who is a winner in the war on Iraq? I'd say look to the money -- don't try to kid yourself that it has anything to do with the people of Iraq.
It's a mess, it's going to be a mess.
Back to the "Blood for oil" mantra?
Who's the ones talking about blood for money now?
Short sighted was going in to begin with. Now we have to pay the price
I'm glad there is a majority that disagree and not what the media portrays with their agenda...the loud and crude 10% for the enemy's victory.
I guess we'll see what happens in the next year..and who dies if we leave-besides hopes and dreams of the ones we can change...
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/img/GirlFlag.jpg
.
That's a revealing statement......are you that callous in real life?
US troops occupying their home?
Where did you get that info, assumption?
the war on Iraq has made the US safer?
Yes. they are in an area we can engage with and kill them in large numbers.
I'm not trying to "get even" with an administration. I have believed from the onset that the administration was misguided.
"Everything will be done to undermine the democratic vote -- again, listen to Bush's speech yesterday."
Kool aid assumption that Bush is at the head of everything pulling the strings..in reality he is not.
And the Congress, Senate, DOD, UN, the prior administration, and most of the area intell agencies said it was imperative to get control of Iraq and get Sodamn Insane out.
Do we cut our loses and do the best we can with the fall out. No matter what, we have lost. Bad decision to go in and getting out will not be without trauma to the US.
Again, are you that callous in real life? Condemning people to a sure death including the redeployment of the grandchildren of those now serving because of irresponsible politics making the area dangerous for a long time down the road?
Are you prepared to accept responsibility for the carnage?
There will never be replacement of the American soldier with an Iraqi. Why? Because the Iraqis are not united. They never have been and they won't be. They are tribal and their loyalty is to their tribe, not to any government. Look at the history of the area. Their are about 150 tribes in Iraq and they are generally theocratic.
So write them off and let them die, and not bring them into the 21st century? The only reason the Iraqis have been that way because Sodamn keep them divided with his loaded government and sheer terror tactics. They need time to learn new ways-our republic took 13 years...
I guess we should have let Germany keep all those conquered countries and stayed out of WW2...the Jews were expendable.
Until the Iraqis want something different, which won't happen in my life time, until they want a different type of government, it won't happen no matter what you want or the Bush administration wants.
How are they going to be able to without a strong policing presence that will convince them that the enemy won't kick in their doors and kill them for siding with the new government?
Of course for self preservation they won't cooperate until they SEE that we are there until order is restored. It's already happening in outlying districts under US/Iraqi control-but you can't acknowledge that because that would show hope in the process.
Who are we supporting? Who is a winner in the war on Iraq? I'd say look to the money -- don't try to kid yourself that it has anything to do with the people of Iraq.
It's a mess, it's going to be a mess.
Back to the "Blood for oil" mantra?
Who's the ones talking about blood for money now?
Short sighted was going in to begin with. Now we have to pay the price
I'm glad there is a majority that disagree and not what the media portrays with their agenda...the loud and crude 10% for the enemy's victory.
I guess we'll see what happens in the next year..and who dies if we leave-besides hopes and dreams of the ones we can change...
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/img/GirlFlag.jpg
.
U
